Hi List,
When auto vacuum is over the dead tuple are seems to get reduced, but
physical size of database do not decreases.
We are using Postgres 8.1.3 and this are the auto vacuum settings.
autovacuum = on # enable autovacuum subprocess?
autovacuum_naptime = 900#
Subramaniam Aiylam wrote:
Now, there is one particular update that I make from
one of the client machines - this involves a
reasonably large object graph (from the Java point of
view). It deletes a bunch of rows (around 20 rows in
all) in 4-5 tables and inserts another bunch into the
same table
Gauri Kanekar wrote:
Hi List,
When auto vacuum is over the dead tuple are seems to get reduced, but
physical size of database do not decreases.
It won't necessarily. An ordinary vacuum just keeps track of old rows
that can be cleared and re-used. A "vacuum full" is needed to compact
the tabl
Hi,
How do I make the physical size of the DB smaller without doing a
full vacuum.
This might turn out to be counterproductive, as subsequent inserts
and updates will increase
the size of the physical database again, which might be expensive
depending on the underlying OS.
--
Heiko W.Rup
You can also try this one:
ANALYZE tablename;
select reltuples from pg_class where relname = 'tablename';
Will also give almost the same results I guess...
-
Shoaib Mir
EnterpriseDB (www.enterprisedb.com)
On 1/23/07, Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 02:37:44PM +0900, Galy Lee wrote:
> 1. How do we know if autovacuum is enough for my application, or should
> I setup a vacuum manually from cron for my application?
Generally I trust autovac unless there's some tables where it's critical
that they be vacuumed frequent
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> I'll generally start with a cost delay of 20ms and adjust based on IO
> utilization.
I've been considering set a default autovacuum cost delay to 10ms; does
this sound reasonable?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Rep
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:52:02AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> > I'll generally start with a cost delay of 20ms and adjust based on IO
> > utilization.
>
> I've been considering set a default autovacuum cost delay to 10ms; does
> this sound reasonable?
For a lightly lo
